Confidence Interval of Single Dipole Locations Based on EEG Data

Noise in EEG and MEG measurements leads to inaccurate localizations of the sources. A confidence volume is used to describe the amount of localization error. Previous methods to estimate the confidence volume proved insufficient. Thus a new procedure was introduced and compared with previous ones. As one procedure, Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) were performed. The confidence volume was also estimated using two methods with different assumptions about a linear transfer function between source location and the distribution of the potential. One method used variable (LVM) and the other fixed dipole orientations (LFM). Finally, the confidence volume was estimated through a procedure in which there was no linearization of the transfer function. This procedure scans the confidence volume by varying the dipole location in multiple directions. Confidence volumes were calculated for simulated distributions of the electrical potential and for experimental data including somatosensory evoked responses to stimulation of lower lip, thumb, and little finger. Results from simulated data indicated that confidence volumes calculated with the MCS method were largest, and those calculated with the LFM method were smallest. For dipole locations close to the brain surface, the confidence volume was smaller than for a central deeper source. An increase in electrode density resulted in smaller confidence volumes. When the noise was correlated, only the method using the MCS produced acceptable results. Since the noise in experimental data is highly correlated, only the MCS method would appear to be useful in estimating the size of the confidence volume of the dipole locations. Thus, using real data with the MCS method, we easily distinguished separate and distinct representations of the thumb, little finger, and lower lip in the somatosensory cortex (SI). It was concluded that adequate estimation of confidence volumes is useful for localizing neural activity. On a practical level, this information can be used prior to an experiment for determining the conditions necessary to distinguish between different dipole sources, including the required signal to noise ratio and the minimum electrode density.     

Variability of Electrode Positions Using Electrode Caps

We investigated the variability of electrode positions for a multi-channel, custom electrode cap placed onto participants’ heads without taking scalp measurements. The electrode positions were digitized in a three-dimensional space for 10 young adult participants on three separate occasions. Positional variability was determined for 15 selected electrodes within the three-dimensional preauricular-nasion (PAN) coordinate system and from this system, angular coordinate variability was also determined. The standard deviations of the 15 selected electrodes ranged from 3.0 to 12.7 mm in the PAN system. These data resulted in a variability of 2.0° to 10.4° among the angular coordinates. The measurements indicated slightly greater variability of electrode positions compared to studies when electrodes were placed using scalp measurements. The implication of this study is that the use of electrode caps may not be appropriate when electroencephalographic (EEG) or evoked potential (EP) techniques depend on accurate electrode placement. Additionally, if a longitudinal study is performed, electrode locations should be checked to ensure that they conform with previous sessions.     

Using the International 10-20 EEG System for Positioning of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

BACKGROUND: The International 10-20 system for EEG electrode placement is increasingly applied for the positioning of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in cognitive neuroscience and in psychiatric treatment studies. The crucial issue in TMS studies remains the reliable positioning of the coil above the skull for targeting a desired cortex region. In order to asses the precision of the 10-20 system for this purpose, we tested its projections onto the underlying cortex by using neuronavigation. METHODS: In 21 subjects, the 10-20 positions F3, F4, T3, TP3, and P3, as determined by a 10-20 positioning cap, were targeted stereotactically. The corresponding individual anatomical sites were identified in the Talairach atlas. RESULTS: The main targeted regions were: for F3 Brodmann areas (BA) 8/9 within the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, for T3 BA 22/42 on the superior temporal gyrus, for TP3 BA 40/39 in thearea of the supramarginal and angular gyrus, and for P3 BA 7/40 on the inferior parietal lobe. However, in about 10% of the measurements adjacent and possibly functionally distinct BAs were reached. The ranges were mainly below 20 mm. CONCLUSION: Using the 10-20 system for TMS positioning is applicable at low cost and may reach desired cortex regions reliably on a larger scale level. For finer grained positioning, possible interindividual differences, and therefore the application of neuroimaging based methods, are to be considered.